AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·07 May 2025

Tribunal Grants £8415 Lift Repair Dispensation for Residential Block in London

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal granted permission to a landlord to bypass the usual consultation process for repairing a broken lift in a residential building. This was allowed due to the urgent nature of the repairs and the lack of evidence suggesting the works were inappropriate or that the consultation was necessary.

⚖️ Legal holding

A landlord may obtain dispensation from statutory consultation requirements under section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 when there is an urgent need for essential repairs, as evidenced by the lack of a working lift and the hardship faced by tenants with mobility issues.

Topics

statutory consultation requirementsdispensation from consultation

Provisions

Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s.20ZA

📖 What the law says

Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s.20ZA

This section allows a tribunal to grant dispensation from statutory consultation requirements for qualifying works or agreements if it is reasonable to do so. It defines 'qualifying works' as works on a building or premises and 'qualifying long term agreement' as an agreement lasting over twelve months. The 'consultation requirements' refer to rules set by the Secretary of State, which can include providing details of proposed works to tenants, obtaining estimates, and considering tenants' observations.

Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a solicitor.

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal granted dispensation from statutory consultation requirements for lift repairs costing £8,415 due to the urgent need for a functional lift.

📜 Headnote Official document

The Tribunal granted dispensation from statutory consultation requirements for works to repair a non-functioning lift in a residential property. The decision was based on the lack of evidence of inappropriate works or consultation.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case reference : LON/00AW/LDC/2025/0672 Applicant: [redacted]

[COMPANY]

Respondent : [redacted] Property : 13 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Tribunal : Deputy District Judge Samuel sitting as a Tribunal Judge Date of decision : 6 May 2025

DECISION

Background to the application 1. By application dated 7 March 2025 the Applicant/landlord has applied for dispensation from the statutory consultation requirements in respect of works to the lift at 13 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] (‘[NAME]’). 2. [NAME] is a residential block comprising 4 leasehold units spread over seven floors including a basement.

3. Under section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and the regulations made under it, a landlord contemplating carrying out major works (defined as works costing more than £250 per flat) has to carry out a consultation, on pain of having the recoverability of the cost of the works capped at £250 per flat.

4. The application states: The [NAME] are currently without a working lift. [NAME] have mobility issues and are struggling to walk the stairs. The building is tall with several flights of stairs

2 The proposed qualifying works are for works to the lift which is currently not working. It includes Ram Seal Replacement, Uil Replacement and A£ DLV Safety Valve. These works total £8415 inclusive of VAT. (sic) The building has several flights. There are [NAME] and tenants with mobility issues who are dependent on the lift and who are currently facing ongoing hardship whilst the lift is inoperable.

5. The only evidence in support is a quotation from [COMPANY] dated 27 February 2025 for £6,788.25 plus VAT 6. The Tribunal gave directions in this matter on 19 March 2025. The [NAME] have not participated in the application, which has therefore continued on an undefended basis.

7. The Applicant emailed the [NAME] and tenants on 7 March 2025 which explained the quotation received and informed them that they were going to seek dispensation.

8. On 1 April 2025 the Applicant informed the Tribunal that the application had been sent to the [NAME] and displayed in [NAME]. Reasons 9. Given the lack of a response to the application no prejudice arising from the lack of consultation with the Respondents has been identified. There is no evidence before the Tribunal that the works proposed are inappropriate or that the quotation is more than would be appropriate.

10. This dispensation does not mean that the tenants cannot challenge the cost or quality of the work done. It simply dispenses with the consultation requirement.

11. There is no application in respect of the fees for applying to the Tribunal, so we make no order in respect of such fees.

DETERMINATION (a) The Tribunal grants a dispensation pursuant to section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 in respect of the works which are the subject of the application. (b) The Tribunal makes no order in respect of the fees payable to the Tribunal. Name: DDJ Samuel Date: 6th May 2025

📊 How courts decide similar cases

Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:

Allowed12 cases

A snapshot of this collection — not a prediction of your case's outcome.

⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this

✅ Tends to be accepted

The works are deemed necessary and urgent.
There is no evidence of inappropriate works or consultation.
No prejudice to lessees or tenants.
Works are urgent and cannot wait for full consultation.
Significant risk to safety requiring prompt action.

Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The decision allowed the landlord to proceed with lift repairs without consulting the tenants.

What was the dispute about?

The dispute was about whether the landlord needed to consult the tenants before proceeding with lift repairs costing £8415.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided to grant dispensation because there was no evidence of prejudice to the tenants since they did not respond to the proposal.

Which laws or rules were applied?

Section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 was applied.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The argument that mattered most was the lack of response from the tenants, indicating no prejudice would arise from bypassing the consultation requirement.

Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?

The decision was for the person who brought the case, the landlord.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone in a similar situation can also apply for dispensation if there is no response from the tenants regarding the proposed works.

What evidence or documents mattered?

The quotation from the contractor for the lift repairs was the key document considered by the Tribunal.

Official source: First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) — headnote and full judgment reproduced from the court's public records. View on the official source ↗Summary, holding, technical summary and questions: produced by Artificial Intelligence based on the official headnote and judgment. These are VadeLab’s own material and are not the work of the Court.This decision was issued by the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) and is reproduced from its published records. VadeLab is not affiliated with, and this page is not endorsed by, that court or tribunal.